llustrative image | Sources: Smoke billows from Eskom's Lethabo coal-fired power station. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Kim Ludbrook) | A worker inside the control room at the Eskom Lethabo coal-fired power station in Vereeniging. (Photo: Waldo Swiegers / Bloomberg via Getty Images) | Bank notes. (Photo: Unsplash) | BCG — Boston Consulting Group. (Photo: Unsplash) 
In the race against climate change, South Africa stands at a juncture, attempting to navigate a complex and costly transition from its coal-dependent past to a sustainable future. Billions of dollars have been pledged, policies are being crafted, and the stakes for communities, workers, and the planet could not be higher.
Yet, a new report by Open Secrets, The Climate Consultants: How management consultants cash in on the climate crisis, casts a long, disquieting shadow over this endeavour.
The report reveals a pervasive and often opaque influence of private management consulting firms, many with alleged conflicts of interest and questionable track records, positioning themselves to reap significant profits from South Africa’s Just Energy Transition (JET).
The report, authored by Zen Mathe, Michael Marchant, Ra’eesa Pather, Luvano Ntuli, and Ariella Scher from Open Secrets, digs into how management consultants and institutions linked to donor countries receive the lion’s share of the grant funding.
During the report’s launch, Mathe said they found that about 65% of the committed grant funds have gone to private corporations and organisations as implementing entities, and less than 25%of the grant monies have gone to local implementing entities such as non-governmental organisations, public sector institutions and universities.
“We’ve also found that often there is a direct link between where the money comes from (the donor country) and where the money goes to (the implementing entity). And as a result, consulting firms are playing a fundamental role in shaping South Africa’s response to the climate and energy crisis, whether it’s in the workforce, Africa’s largest fossil fuel companies and banks, or for public institutions and governments. And they do so despite serious conflicts of interest.”
width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">
She told Daily Maverick that much of the expenditure on South Africa’s energy transition had happened in a system parallel to that of the state and had not been subject to sufficient public oversight.
Findings from the report
The report unearths a troubling paradox. As governments and corporations scramble for solutions to the climate crisis, the global market for management consulting has exploded, surpassing $1-trillion in 2023.
Major players like Boston Consulting Group (BCG), McKinsey and the consulting arms of the Big Four accounting firms have aggressively expanded their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) offerings, marketing themselves as indispensable guides to decarbonisation.
But, Open Secrets’ investigation lays bare alleged conflicts. These same firms frequently advise the world’s largest polluters (fossil fuel giants like Sasol, ExxonMobil, and Saudi Aramco) on strategies that, in many cases, entrench their carbon-intensive operations.
McKinsey, for instance, has been revealed to work for 43 of the top 100 corporate polluters, while simultaneously drafting energy transition documents that propose trillions in new oil and gas investments.
Boston Consulting Group, despite being the consulting partner for climate change summits COP26 and COP28, proudly listed Saudi Aramco among its most innovative companies and has advised Sasol on its “Future Sasol” strategy, which includes an ongoing focus on green hydrogen.
Can these firms profiting from the very industries driving the climate crisis genuinely guide a “just” transition away from them? The report suggests their advice often lacks the ambition for systemic change, favouring “techno-managerial” and market-based solutions like carbon offsetting, which critics argue benefit large polluters and sideline deeper social and economic reforms.
The surge in demand for climate-related consulting stems from several key developments. The 2015 Paris Agreement, with its focus on nationally determined contributions (NDCs), prompted governments worldwide to seek external advice for their climate commitments.
Concurrently, the private sector’s growing recognition of climate risks and new financial reporting requirements created a lucrative market for climate advice. Consultancies, leveraging their reputation, have rapidly expanded their “dedicated capacity for climate-related consulting work”.
Giants like Boston Consulting Group launched their Centre for Climate and Sustainability in 2021, boasting more than 550 specialists and becoming the official Consultancy Partner for COP26 in Glasgow.
Not to be outdone, McKinsey launched McKinsey Sustainability in May 2021, claiming more than 3,500 consultants working in climate and Environmental, Social, and Governance sectors, beefing up its offerings through acquisitions like UK-based Vivid Economics.
Lack of progress
The report raises the question: Despite this consulting boom, why is climate action still “moving far too slowly” with far too little consideration to its impact on the most vulnerable? The centrality of these firms, it argues, is an important cause of the lack of progress.
The report states that the use of consultants further undermines expertise and capacity within states. This, according to the authors, leads to a serious risk of over-reliance on consultants that weakens the ability of states to develop their own climate and energy policies.
Below, we take a look at some case studies and implicated agencies from the report.
BCG’s response
Boston Consulting Group (BCG), a prominent firm highlighted in the Open Secrets report, provided Daily Maverick responses to several key allegations.
Regarding its work with major fossil fuel companies while simultaneously participating in global climate negotiations, BCG stated: “BCG works with the energy industry at large, including oil and gas companies, given the critical role they play in breaking the hard trade-offs around the world’s energy trilemma.
“We work on improving and decarbonising supply and accelerating investments in lower-carbon energy sources. Furthermore, we believe that supporting the decarbonisation of heavy emitters is also crucial to achieve the decarbonisation of existing industries and assets.”
On its controversial Most Innovative Companies list, which included Saudi Aramco, Shell, and ExxonMobil in 2023, BCG said that its list “recognises firms driving measurable change through technology, strategy, and business model evolution. Inclusion reflects innovation as it exists, including within legacy sectors that must evolve.”
Addressing concerns about promoting natural gas as a transition fuel and advocating for green hydrogen investments despite methane leakage and viability doubts, BCG said: “BCG’s work with various multi-stakeholder coalitions (e.g. NBI, Business Unity South Africa, the Energy Council of South Africa) is focused on providing analytical and technical modelling support.
“Rather than prescribing solutions, BCG uses data-driven analysis to help stakeholders understand the trade-offs between different pathways and identify interventions that remain valid across scenarios.”
/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-30-at-09.19.06.jpg "(Graphic: Gaelen Pinnock for Open Secrets)")
BCG defended its R6-million Energy Transition Roadmap for the Energy Council, a coalition of more than 40 businesses, including polluters, stating that members contributed individually and were committed to decarbonisation.
On the influence of fossil fuel clients on public-facing outputs like the #energisemzansi campaign and the EDMSA energy modelling tool, BCG asserted: “BCG is committed to the highest standards of ethics and business conduct, and we apply rigorous confidentiality measures and conflict-of-interest protocols in our engagements.”
Responding to allegations of a lack of transparency and unincorporated feedback in its NBI/Business Unity South Africa collaboration, BCG maintained that the project involved an “open and transparent consultation process” with more than 200 participants from over 30 companies, government bodies, and civil society organisations.
‘Fact-based synthesis’
It stated that the advisory committee and steering committee were both regularly engaged by BCG for review and comment, and that the final report represents a “fact-based synthesis of all contributions and does not reflect the views or interests of any single contributor”.
Concerning the hiring of former Bain employees implicated in the SARS State Capture scandal, BCG stated: “BCG follows a rigorous vetting process when hiring new colleagues. Based on that vetting process, there were no factors that would have precluded their onboarding.”
It added that BCG adhered to procurement policies and regulatory requirements, both in the private and public sectors.
Finally, regarding its client relationship with Standard Bank, which finances controversial projects like Eacop, BCG stated: “BCG maintains strict confidentiality agreements with all our clients both in the private and public sectors. As such, we are unable to provide details on individual clients or specific project work.”
The same response was given for queries about the quantifiable progress of the Mpumalanga SME investment project.
BCG concluded its overall comments by stating: “We only undertake work where we are uniquely qualified to contribute to addressing technical complexity, ensuring that BCG’s efforts are directed toward accelerating a just and sustainable transition. We are proud of our contribution to South Africa’s JET.”
The PCC under scrutiny
The Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), established in 2020 to advise President Cyril Ramaphosa on South Africa’s climate response, is a crucial institution in the JET.
Currently, it legally exists under the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) until it can be established as a separate public entity under the Climate Change Act.
Mathe said the establishment of the PCC in this manner had led to much confusion around its reporting and oversight lines, which determine its accountability and help to strengthen its independence.
A welcome finding from the Open Secrets report is that the PCC has largely avoided direct reliance on the Big Three management consultancies. Instead, it frequently turns to academic institutions and local think tanks for expertise.
But the PCC is not without its own challenges. The report reveals concerns from former insiders and civil society about its internal governance.
Allegations include the centralisation of power within a small network of individuals, creating a “shadow ministry” that sidelines the diverse body of commissioners. The PCC has called for the past and present insiders referred to in this report to be “unveiled” as they believe this was not a protected disclosure matter.
Questions were also raised about the transparency of its procurement processes, particularly its reliance on fiscal hosting by entities like the African Climate Foundation (ACF) for donor funds, which operates outside the requirements of South Africa’s Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
While the African Climate Foundation insists on its non-interference, critics worry about the potential for conflicts of interest when a re-granting organisation is so intimately involved in policy shaping.
The report highlights the case of Krutham (formerly Intellidex), a financial consulting firm contracted by the PCC to advise on the Just Transition Financing Mechanism.
While Krutham maintains its expertise and competitive appointment, climate experts express surprise at its rapid prominence in the climate finance space, suggesting that the PCC might be outsourcing work to demonstrate “independence” rather than building internal capacity or fully leveraging its own commissioners’ expertise.
PCC’s response
The Presidential Climate Commission provided Daily Maverick with a comprehensive response to the allegations and criticisms raised.
Regarding claims of a shadow ministry and centralised decision making, the PCC stated that members of the secretariat were appointed following rigorous and competitive recruitment processes.
Blessing Manale, PCC communications and outreach head, said: “The assertion that commissioners are being sidelined or ostracised is incorrect and is not borne out by the commissioners’ own assessments of the functioning of the commission. It is also important to note that all commission meetings are publicly broadcast and that all decisions of the commission are taken at these meetings and recorded accordingly.”
On the accountability of commissioners and addressing civil society criticisms, Manale said the commission made recommendations based on consensus and not on a stronger hand or influence by any social partner or institution represented by a commissioner.
“Commissioners are held accountable by the collective; they should be able to report to their constituencies on their work, and in most instances the secretariat has been invited to attend various events, conferences and dialogues by these organisations so that we could expand on the substance of our work,” said Manale.
He added that all commissioners who had resigned or been replaced had been at the behest of their constituencies, and that the president had accepted replacement nominations from such organisations.
During all consultations, Manale said that commissioners who lead the substantive discussion were interrogated and provided feedback, input, and criticism by stakeholders.
“It needs to be emphasised that civil society has nine representatives... This makes it the largest block in the commission. In addition, the PCC has established a Youth Caucus and a gender Advisory Forum, and other structures… as some mechanisms ensure elaborate discussion and engagement on pertinent issues in the PCC work programme,” said Manale.
Addressing the criticism that commissioners sometimes prioritised organisational interests, the PCC responded: “The commissioners can only be held responsible by their nominating organisations for the work they do in the commission and their commitment to the consensus mechanism of the PCC.”
Manale added that in any matter of discussion, all commissioners and the secretariat made a declaration where there would be a conflict of interest.
On the selection of Krutham (formerly Intellidex) for the Just Transition Financing Mechanism work, the PCC affirmed that Krutham had been appointed on a commercial basis to support its work on advancing South Africa’s JET through two research and advisory projects delivered between 2022 and 2023.
They emphasised: “All PCC consulting work is procured through a competitive, open, and transparent procurement process, in compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, for all Nedlac procured work and in compliance with the African Climate Foundations’ Finance and Procurement Policy.”
Manale said: “Krutham’s work is thoroughly processed by the secretariat, carefully considered by the commission, and cross-referenced with a diversity of stakeholder views.”
Addressing its funding model and relationship with the African Climate Foundation (ACF), the PCC stated that it had a Donor Policy and Standard Operating Procedure for screening and receiving donor resources, with additional checks by its Finance and Governance Committee.
Independence
The African Climate Foundation is a fiscal host of the PCC, through an agreement signed by Nedlac on behalf of the PCC and ACF to fiscally host the PCC donors. Manale said this relationship did not affect the independence of the PCC.
He added that the PCC had always been transparent about its sources of funding, which were overseen by its commissioners. Manale further said that the African Climate Foundation did not sit on the PCC, did not vote on its decisions, was not a commissioner, and did not exert influence over their positions.
“The African Climate Foundation is therefore seen as an enabler, not a director. Much like African Climate Foundation’s grant-making to other grantees, including Open Secrets, the African Climate Foundation does not influence or direct our decisions,” said Manale.
The PCC concluded by stating that it was satisfied that it had fulfilled its mandate and that its advice was based on thorough stakeholder engagement informed by the best available research, and that no undue influence was exerted on its decision-making processes by private consultants or donors.
It also noted a factual inaccuracy in the Open Secrets report regarding Manale’s former role, stating that he was not the former director-general of the Ministry of Transport, and would make submissions for correction.
Consulting giant denies role in green energy projects
According to the JET Grants Register and the report, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is listed as an implementing partner for four UK-funded projects under the Just Energy Transition Partnership, with a combined value exceeding R130-million.
These projects are primarily focused on Mpumalanga’s transition, involving initiatives like a R20-million “Climate Finance Accelerator” to boost low-carbon businesses, a R2-million project to vet municipal projects for further funding, and two larger collaborations with Adam Smith International (ASI) and Pegasys Consortium valued at R22-million and R86-million respectively.
These latter projects aim to support local economic diversification and develop project pipelines in the energy and water sectors.
In response, PwC South Africa told Daily Maverick it was not involved in these projects and that each firm in the PwC global network was a separate and independently controlled entity. It suggested PwC UK may be involved, but could not confirm the register's accuracy and explicitly denied any involvement in the work with ASI and Pegasys.
Separately, PwC addressed its past audit failures at SAA, as highlighted by the State Capture commission, and said it was disappointed that its work fell below professional standards.
The firm acknowledged that the responsible audit partner, who was no longer with PwC, accepted a sanction from the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors for the oversight.
Transparency needed in South Africa’s energy sector
The Open Secrets report concludes with recommendations to steer South Africa’s Just Energy Transition back towards its core principles of justice, transparency, and public interest.
Mathe told Daily Maverick that the state must take immediate action to improve transparency in South Africa’s energy sector, especially concerning JET funding and contracts. Additionally, she said JET funding partnership agreements should be publicly accessible and require quarterly reporting.
“In particular, the state must maintain a publicly accessible database of the full expenditure of Just Energy Transition Partnership monies (including those which have been paid into the fiscus and those which have been routed outside of the state), to enable proper monitoring and evaluation of the partnership,” said Mathe.
They also call for more secure and appropriate financing. While more JET Investment Plan funding was needed, Open Secrets said a larger portion must be granted, with a significant shift towards local entities like communities, NGOs, civil society and academic institutions.
Another recommendation was to strengthen financial stewardship and procurement oversight.
The report states that all JETP monies, regardless of origin, should ideally be routed through the South African state and be subject to the Public Finance Management Act. Where not possible, robust alternative oversight mechanisms must ensure alignment with the just transition definition in the Climate Change Act.
The authors also state that the management consulting sector urgently needs effective regulation to hold firms accountable for misconduct and conflicts of interest. DM